That misunderstands things. They already RULED that there was no infraction. As Ridley said, whether or not they told Tiger there was no infraction was irrelevant.
No, they didn't. They, acting on the information they had at the time, assessed no further penalty. When more information became available later, they assessed the appropriate penalty, and waived the DQ because the penalty was not of a significant nature.
The difference is easily seen: both committees made the best decision with the available information. In Stacy's case it was on the sixth hole IIRC, and the committee could see all they needed on the tape.
In the case of the Masters, only after he'd signed his card and gave a post-round interview did more information come to light. Rules officials can only know what they know - they don't possess extra-sensory perception to know more than is available to them.
Yes, they had already ruled. But they should NOT have ruled until they got all the information.
You make it sound like the information they got later wasn't available earlier. It most certainly was, and all they had to do to get the information was ASK TIGER what he was doing, because he had that information from the moment he made the drop. The failure to GET all the information when it was easily available (just like the Stacy Lewis case) is a failure to act consistently in both cases.
You say that in the Lewis case "the committee could see all they needed on the tape" as though we're supposed to pretend they didn't approach her and ASK her whether she and Travis were testing the surface. I could just as easily cop out and say that you can see all the evidence you need on tape in Tiger's case, but I'm not willing to use different standards just because they're different tournaments. Both are supposed to be judged by the same standards. They didn't just inform Stacy that she was being penalized. They asked her what she and Travis were doing before they penalized her because the tape doesn't show as must as you say it does. They didn't wait until her press conferences after the round to see if she said something about it.
Right or wrong, the committee made the assumption that the video was all that was needed. It wasn't until after the fact that Tiger condemned himself in his post round interview, an interview which the committee clearly didn't even see until late that evening after being told about it by an outside party. By then it was too late for the committee to do anything but what they ultimately did. You clearly have an ax to grind here for some reason if you can't see any difference. Tiger didn't think he had broken a rule. After reviewing the evidence they had at the time, the committee didn't think so either, not even enough to pursue the matter with Tiger. If Tiger had kept his mouth shut, this debate wouldn't be happening and everyone would be unaware that any breach occurred.
In the Stacey Lewis matter, the video itself was damning. The discussion with her was just for confirmation.